EDIT: FFS why does this subject always get people frothing at the mouth before they even read the main point stated, only to go on and accidentally agree with it eventually? Pls read first before getting mad at stuff that I explicitly argued against.
EDIT 2: OK apparently there's still miscommunication, and I think the 1st edit somehow made it worse. When I say "useful" I put it in scare quotes on purpose and as I clarify in the 1st, 4th and 5th paragraps, it is NOT about value but about practical/technological utility.
I originally posted this on R*ddit to an audience of math nerds (so be warned that it is written with reddit STEMlords in mind) because there was a relevant convo going on and it would be fun to also have it here.
Sure, there is a lot of modern math that is practically useful, but the majority of pure math really isn't "useful' in any way, shape or form for now, and probably won't be any time soon, possibly forever. Like, even areas which are apparently "useful", like computer science, is full of things that have absolutely 0 practical utility and are solely of academic interest. Whether P does or doesn't equal NP doesn't really matter to anyone doing practical work. People wouldn't get upset about their discipline getting slighted or whatever if this stupid idea that scientific research should have "practical application" (which generally means "someone can sell it for money") hadn't proliferated, starting from schools.
Even when someone finds an "application" through some kind of far fetched (or not so far fetched) reasoning, it's some application to, like, highly theoretical physics that may or may not actually have something to do with the real world, and even if it does, it is only relevant in extremely niche experimental circumstances to the extent that it can't ever conceivably lead to technological progress. And even IF it does, sometimes it's just progress relevant only to more research about more stuff without application.
So even then you have to resort to saying something like "the result is not useful but maybe one of the methods used to prove it can be used for something else", and then that something else turns out to also not be useful but again "maybe one of the methods used to find that something else is useful for another something else and that other something else is useful for another other something else and then that other other something else has a practical application that is only relevant to research, but then maybe that relates to some other other other...", etc and it gets kind of silly. That or someone says something abstract like "it's useless now but it may be useful some time!". Maybe. Or maybe not.
In the end of the day the same arguments could be used to justify anything being useful via some contrived butterfly effect style conjecture. This of course is usually done because otherwise people can't get grant money otherwise, governments demand that research will produce results they can use to blow up people or sell stuff. Also the result of a bad educational system that emphasizes this kind of "usefulness", which therefore renders it unable to convince students that something is worth learning unless it is "useful". Of course "why should I learn this if it's not useful to me" is a very valid concern of students, but the problem is somewhere else. First, schools DON'T really teach any of the stuff that is useful and interesting to most people. If they did, then math would get a lot less attacks on that front. Schools teach with 30% of the students in mind, the ones who will really apply the things they learned. The other 70% can just go to prison or whatever as far as the educational system is concerned. Second, schools are very boring and antagonistic towards kids and since kids are miserable learning stuff, they need extra justification to learn them. Third, the schools themselves teach kids to think like that so it's no surprise that they do. Fourth, school math mostly sucks and is super boring for most people.
So yes, most modern pure math is indeed "useless". That is not the issue. The issue is, why does this matter? Why is it bad? Should it be bad? I don't think so. It's a false idea that gets perpetuated at many levels starting from school. But then there is the issue of mathematics being very exclusionary and distant from most people, which makes it harder for them to care, which brings us to the issue of outreach but whatever, that's a different matter.
Have you considered that perhaps they do get some kind of feeling out of prayer?
Also lmao
yeah and then once i considered it i was like dang thats absurd
Have you considered that perhaps it's not literally everyone who is driving on the wrong side of the road but perhaps it's you?
if everyone has a delusion then everyone else is wrong
I'm gonna share an experience I had.
When I was a 12yo kid, for around two hours of my life, music actually felt like you said, it didn't have any meaning or emotion, barely rhythm.
Then I had a horrible migraine and the next day I was back to enjoying music.
From this perspective of having experienced both, it really isn't a delusion.
It really doesn’t have any meaning. It can sound nice, that’s about all there is to say for it.
Yes, that's how I felt in that brief period of time, but before and after I could decode emotion and some meaning from it.
Wtf is delusional about getting a feeling out of music lmao
Most people aren't lying about feeling something because of prayer. Some do lie about it because they have ulterior motives. But generally people do get a feeling out of it because it makes them feel hopeful, it gets things out of their chest, they feel they connect to God and it is a moment of introspection. "But God is fake" cool, that's entirely irrelevant.
With music there isn't even a structure above that can be true or false. You don't feel something out of music because you are "tricked" into believing something false. Like, perhaps you don't feel anything but that's not because you are right and they are wrong. It's just that for whatever reason it doesn't get you, which is way, way more unusual than the opposite.
The analogy of prayer to music/art is that these are all things that are incredibly boring and pointless, but which society says are good, meaningful, and vitally important things.
As far as prayer, “God is fake” is pretty relevant, because it means that most people aren’t really experiencing anything when they pray. It makes the most sense that they’re lying about getting anything out of it because of social stigma/norms. Not accounting for things that alter experiences like schizophrenia or LSD.
To you.
Yeah because you can only experience a feeling if God makes you.
yeah everything I write is according to me
from prayer yeah
no
come on man
I'm coming.
I meant it like be honest and reasonable. if there’s no god then prayer is pointless and people don’t get anything out of it
Doesn't mean they're lying if they feel something. It's called having emotions.
if there’s no god, there’s nothing there to cause the experience
What experience? An emotion? What do you think causes emotions in people? Drugs?
idk, but the experience they’re claiming isn’t real so the emotional response sounds made up too.
like suppose you told me you were very excited because you won the lottery. but then I find out you didn’t win the lottery. I would think that you probably weren’t excited about winning the lottery either.
e: the experience of talking to god
Have you considered that perhaps people who pray don't all claim they had supernatural experiences, but simply that they felt good?
No, I was neglecting that group as I’ve never met or heard of anyone like that, and it seems like a contradiction in terms.
It’s pretty implausible that someone would feel good from intentionally boring themselves for no reason. Just going off own experience and empathy.
You mean lack of experience and empathy.
No, not at all. Please try to be honest.
I mean I am honest, it's you who for some reason thinks everyone is lying to you about having emotions. You know, perhaps not everyone is lying and maybe your sense of empathy is just kinda out of whack.
did you even consider my evidence and reasoning
You don't have any evidence, you just think everyone is lying to you and ignoring what people are telling you. Your "evidence" is that "I don't feel that way so no one does".
that is evidence, but it wasn’t my only evidence. did you read the lottery analogy?
Oh, I did, it was just bullshit and completely inapplicable lmao. Like what the fuck does it have to do with anything lol
someone says they had an emotional reaction to a thing that happened
we find out that thing didnt happen
this is no cause to doubt the emotional reaction?
What does your silly imaginary scenario have anything to do with anything? How is that remotely relevant?
first we had music/art, then you were like ofc they aren’t all lying about it, that would be absurd. so i brought up prayer as a clear example where it’s boring and people lie about the meaning, and you said they’re not lying even if there is no god. that made no sense, so I needed an even more uncontroversial example.
so i’m all the way down here trying to get you to agree that if someone claims to have an emotional reaction to an experience, and we find out that experience didn’t happen, then we can doubt the emotional response
do you understand the relevance now?
YOU find it boring you moron, that's you, that's not everyone. Jeez.
The example is completely fucking irrelevant. People believe there is a God.
The experience IS the emotion, how hard is that to understand?
if there’s no god, then they don’t experience talking to god
very hard, because it sounds meaningless
To you. But it's pretty much just you. I ask again, what do you think causes emotions? Drugs? God? Can people have emotions at all according to you?
Idk what causes emotions, people have emotional responses to all sorts of things. Of course people can have emotions.
I’m absolutely walking on sunshine because I was elected president of the united states this morning. Do you have any reason to doubt both parts of that sentence?
See if I’m lying about the experience, it casts doubt on the emotional response too.
Why do you keep bringing up irrelevant shit? Do I have to copy paste the same thing again? It doesn't matter if God is literally talking to someone, that is not the experience. The experience is merely an emotional one. It is feeling like you are approaching God, which they believe exists. Just like someone can feel all sorts of ways thinking about someone they love. Obviously you have some issues empathising with people and understanding emotions and that's alright, but maybe you shouldn't assume other people are lying about it? Like, I'm not expecting you to understand this if you can't understand how someone can feel emotion from music, which is, like, one of the most universal emotions humans can have.
Like, people claim to literally talk to God. It’s almost as universal as enjoying music. You’re downplaying it like they claim to just feel good from the act of praying, but that isn’t what they claim. Since this near universal experience isn’t real, why can’t another be fake.
They don't say they sit in a room and have a conversation with him you genius. They're not claiming he talks back or whatever. Jeez this argument is so fucking dumb. I don't know if you are pretending to not understand on purpose. You realize that they believe God does exist and can hear them, right?
I still don't fucking know what even praying has to do with music but anyways...
the hell they don’t
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot everyone is exactly the same as you and believes exactly the same stuff you do.
No, most people believe in God and claim to talk to him by praying, which involves sitting in a room alone and having God speak to them. Have you really never met a religious person?
...yes? How does that contradict what I said?
Have you really never met any person, in general?
Your description of prayer is much more limited than the way most religious people I know describe it.
It's not limited, you just don't understand what they are telling you. Like, what do you think "talk" means to them? Do you think they claim God comes down and then they drink a nice cup of tea together and chat?
the chat part yes
Lmao look if you're not an alien you're taking the piss, either way this is futile.
ok lemme know if you ever talk to a religious person
Like 90% of people are religious here lmao
okey dokey
Music has an effect on your brain.
https://www.ucf.edu/pegasus/your-brain-on-music/
Much like reading a good book can inspire awe or watching a good episode of the simpsons can give you a solid dopamine hit. Outside stimuli can effect the brain!
everyone sure is bananas
go talk to some religious people
I don’t think you’ve talked to many religious people.
it may seem irrelevant, but the seemingly irrelevant examples illustrate a principle that I want to be accepted so that I can use it elsewhere. the point of the examples is to make it so uncontroversial that you can’t disagree
deleted by creator
This comparison only works if you think they didn't win the lottery, but they think they did. So it makes sense for them to have an emotional reaction because as far as they're aware, they did win!
You are assuming they think they did. If they didn’t win the lottery, this is evidence that they are lying about having won the lottery
People can have mistaken or unproven beliefs, and real reactions based on those beliefs. I would be really excited if I thought I won the lottery. People really believe in God when they pray.
I agree with all of those things.
Would you be excited about winning the lottery if you knowingly didn’t win the lottery? Would you feel awe and wonder at God speaking to you if God didn’t speak to you?
Yes, I can get excited by imagining all of the things I could do with the money from winning the lottery, knowing I haven't won. Yes, I can feel a sense of awe and wonder by putting myself in a reverent spiritual state without hearing a voice or detecting any supernatural change in my physical space.
No, that’s different. That is knowingly imagining these things.
I’m talking about someone who claims to experience these things in reality, but doesn’t.
There's not as hard a line between imagining something and believing it as you're insisting. Wanting something to be true, and thinking they're true bleed into each other. I haven't won the lottery, but I personally have plans for what I would do with that money if I had won. I don't even play lottery? I can also hear voices in the silence, if I'm listening for them. I can concentrate on ambient noise and hear speech, even when I know it's just traffic or wind.
Perception to belief to emotion is not a one-way street. Emotion can affect perception, perception can affect emotion, belief can affect perception.
you might be in a different camp all together
That's not a different camp. I'm not describing an unusual situation here but describing common human behavior as it appears, as people describe it for themselves. You're making an extraordinary claim, that everyone, billions of people, are lying about prayer and music (and the lottery), so you can't generalise your perspective but individualise my perspective when I'm making an ordinary claim. These are normal, typical, everyday things.
Hearing voices is not common.
what I’ve proven is that it’s really not an extraordinary claim that billions of people are lying.
deleted by creator
come on man